It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Somebody doesn't like the B-2

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kenshin
If the S-400 is reportably able to take this aircraft down, then surely it will be able to take down the B-2 which has 4x greater RCS than the F-117.


For starters, while you may (may mind you) have the specs down on the S-400 system, you clearly do not have a grasp on the stealth charecteristis betwen a F-117 and a B-2 or a F-35 or F/A-22 for that matter.

Also in real world terms, the radar supporting the system would have to up and radiating at near max power in perfect conditions. This alone would garner the attention of every SEAD aircraft in theatre not to mention any jamming support in the area.

The F-117 was a fluke and has been explained many times before. If the great serbian butche...I mean army could have shot them down at whim as you post seem to imply then why only one?




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I dont know why anybody posts any form of response to Siberian Tiger


It's obvious he lacks intelligence and reasoning, he's probably had a repressed childhood.

Spacemunkey



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   
And having gone back over this thread I have issued out a few warns and will not heastate to do so if I see anything off topic or anything that even comes close to a personal attack. PERIOD is everybody clear on this?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
HAHA! thats all i have to say about that. if someone doesnt like the B2, they should be slapped. how can you not like the most stealthiest, most advanced bomber in the world? that really puzzles me. it doesnt have to be like a b-52 where it has to carry more than 50,000 lbs of payload to destroy things, the b-2 has smart bombs that can accurately hit buildings within like 2 meters. and i saw a video from afghanistan where a bomb from a b-2, or some other plane went inside of a cave.
hhaah, i feel bad for who ever was in there. its just that i dont understand how people dont like the b-2.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Mito I'm Russian not Serbian and Serbs don't lie about the 90's war, NOW if Serbs didn't shoot down B-2 then how did they get the serial number with the place where the B-2 is stationed at (Missiorii)



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Maybe they got the information from here

Not difficult is it?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
NAH, Global Security doesn't provide the technical info they need to shoot ot down.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Hey Intelgurl this is what I was talking about navytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NAH, Global Security doesn't provide the technical info they need to shoot ot down.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



WHAT????

Of course they didn't shoot it down. You asked where they got serial numbers etc, all I'm showing you is that you can find alist on the net a pick any one of them, no proof of a shooting down whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
OH you didn't understand my question, I wasn't asking a question I was telling you in a "question format" you know trying to stimulate people's brain to realise that where they got the serial number was from the shot down B-2's them selves. Thats what I was trying to get across.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
and what hes saying is that YOU DONT HAVE TO SHOOT ONE DOWN.
siberian you need to just ughh



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Mito I'm Russian not Serbian and Serbs don't lie about the 90's war, NOW if Serbs didn't shoot down B-2 then how did they get the serial number with the place where the B-2 is stationed at (Missiorii)


I did not say Serbs did not shoot down the B-2. I know they did shoot some planes down and that was during the bombing of Belgrade and other places few years ago. I frankly don't care who shoot down what, just stick to the facts and not fiction.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The F-117 was a fluke and has been explained many times before. If the great serbian butche...I mean army could have shot them down at whim as you post seem to imply then why only one?



How does one exactly shoot an aircraft down with a guided missile by fluke??


Maybe you've explained it many times before but I'm a little new to this shooting down of F-117s/B-2s and plus im a neutral so exaplain it to me once more aye??



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
You know how they shoot it down on a fluke answer= because the Yanks say it was a fluke, hahahaahahah
yea what ever they say is always the correct way things went down hahahahaah don;t bother asking them (you can if you want) they'll just keep telling you these "FANTASTIC" tales of, "it was a acident" "it was a fluke", "it was a lose faset", "it was this, it was that it was batman in a hat!", hahahaahha
IT was BLOWN otta the sky using Long Wave Radar on a from an SA-6 After the plane was struck it was slowed down before it started to tumble to the ground and thats when the AAA Fire ripped threw it.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
See, now, it has nothing to do with any particular story. I can use simple logic. If shooting down that F-117 wasn't a fluke, then why were they able to run so many successful bombing runs through the most heavily guarded areas? I guess that means SAM's aren't very affective, or at least Russian ones.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Kenshin
If the S-400 is reportably able to take this aircraft down, then surely it will be able to take down the B-2 which has 4x greater RCS than the F-117.


For starters, while you may (may mind you) have the specs down on the S-400 system, you clearly do not have a grasp on the stealth charecteristis betwen a F-117 and a B-2 or a F-35 or F/A-22 for that matter.

Also in real world terms, the radar supporting the system would have to up and radiating at near max power in perfect conditions. This alone would garner the attention of every SEAD aircraft in theatre not to mention any jamming support in the area.

The F-117 was a fluke and has been explained many times before. If the great serbian butche...I mean army could have shot them down at whim as you post seem to imply then why only one?


I'm simply stating what I read, the main goal for the S-400 > is to intercept and destroy stealth aircraft. As this is a relatively new system, I have no doubt that it would not be capable to take down the quite old F-117 or B-2. Over ten years it is very likely that the Russians have some how created a counter to it ? don't you think Seekerof ?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by FredT
The F-117 was a fluke and has been explained many times before. If the great serbian butche...I mean army could have shot them down at whim as you post seem to imply then why only one?



How does one exactly shoot an aircraft down with a guided missile by fluke??


Maybe you've explained it many times before but I'm a little new to this shooting down of F-117s/B-2s and plus im a neutral so exaplain it to me once more aye??


I saw that they were able to locate and shoot it down because they flew the same flight pattern twice.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I keep telling you Disturbed Diliverer 388 NATO Crafts 444 cruise missiles and over 60 UAV's were shot down o.k. I'll even take you on on your own level, Disturbed Diliverer, how many U.S. Aircraft were lost in Gulf War 1 (I know it was 37) but just for arguments sakes I wont say 37 I'll just wait for your answer? watch this everone on ATS!

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

I keep telling you Disturbed Diliverer 388 NATO Crafts 444 cruise missiles and over 60 UAV's were shot down o.k. I'll even take you on on your own level, Disturbed Diliverer, how many U.S. Aircraft were lost in Gulf War 1 (I know it was 37) but just for arguments sakes I wont say 37 I'll just wait for your answer? watch this everone on ATS!


NATO aircraft? That number is meaningless. You're talking about stealth aircraft, and I don't believe even your biased sources are saying a third of those were stealth aircraft.

What the hell does it matter how many planes were shot down during the Gulf War, anyway? That's just a dumb question. Two wars in two completely different environments being conducted by different people are going to get different results. This isn't a computer simulation. You won't always get the same results when you do the same thing twice in real life.


I'm simply stating what I read, the main goal for the S-400 > is to intercept and destroy stealth aircraft. As this is a relatively new system, I have no doubt that it would not be capable to take down the quite old F-117 or B-2. Over ten years it is very likely that the Russians have some how created a counter to it ? don't you think Seekerof ?


Russia never had equal technology to America during the Cold War with a far larger budget, so why would they be able to suddenly match us now that they have a far smaller military budget, and little to no increase in technological capability?

And stealth technology has developed faster then the radar of the Russians at this point. New RAM's have been made to absorb ALL wavelengths, even the super low ones that the Russians supposedly could use to detect stealth.

The only logical theory on detecting stealth right now is using PCL, which is years from being fully developed by anyone.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I keep telling you Disturbed Diliverer 388 NATO Crafts 444 cruise missiles and over 60 UAV's were shot down o.k. I'll even take you on on your own level, Disturbed Diliverer,


Crafts? As in macrame? Why is it everytime you post, I think of Belgrade Bob? In fact that is an appropriate title for the claims you are making. Henceforth whenever you make these claims, we should all view it as comic relief


Next claim by Siberian Tiger: Serbia rebuilt the shot down B-2's and is not flying them against U.S. targets in Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join